Glucocorticoids are central to homeostasis as a function of the circadian cycle, temporally preceding circulating adrenaline concentration circadian fluctuations. Virtually, all cell types express the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). GR is a transcription factor that activates gene expression by binding to enhancers. Intriguingly, not all cell types respond to GR stimulation in the same fashion at the molecular level. This indicates that GR activity is subject to epigenetic control. We discuss the molecular basis for epigenetic control of GR action at the genomic level, including the concept of topologically associating domains which may restrain the roaming range of distal enhancers. Furthermore, much evidence indicates that GR can repress gene expression programs. We therefore discuss current concepts of the molecular basis of GR-mediated gene expression repression, including non-genomic mechanisms that involve mRNA destabilization.
- glucocorticoid receptor
- glucocorticoid response element
- chromosome conformation
- non-genomic action
- RNA decay
Glucocorticoids (GCs) are steroids derived from cholesterol that are mainly produced in the adrenal cortex, under the control of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. Due to their lipophilic nature, GCs can traverse cellular membranes and thus enter any cell. Physiologically, GCs show circadian oscillations in man, peaking at 06:00 before we wake up and then dropping until 00:00, when their levels start to rise again. Adrenaline, a catecholamine that is produced by the adrenal medulla, follows this trend with a lag of about 2 hours . Ontogenetically, GC levels increase during the final weeks of human gestation and in the post-natal period. This not only stimulates gluconeogenesis, but also perinatal lung maturation  and many other physiological processes [3, 4, 5]. Furthermore, GCs are part of an emotion (stress, fear, and arousal) processing pathway in the brain that impacts memory and aspects of behavior that are controlled by the central nervous system [6, 7, 8].
Importantly, from a medical point of view, GCs and their synthetic analogues have strong immunosuppressive properties. Because of this, synthetic GCs belong to the top 50 World Health Organization essential medicines. Prednisone, dexamethasone, and triamcinolone are used to treat a wide range of (auto)inflammatory conditions as well as hematopoietic malignancies. The anti-inflammatory effect of GCs is due to regulation of cell survival and immune signaling molecules such as chemokines, interleukins, and cytokines such as TNFα [9, 10]. GCs are often well accepted as a long-term treatment, making them irreplaceable for medical use. Nevertheless, synthetic glucocorticoid (over)use has a number of side effects that usually involve homeostasis and tissue maintenance [11, 12]. To mitigate such side effects, a detailed understanding of the molecular mode of action of GCs is a necessity. Hence, understanding the molecular mechanisms through which GCs exert their biological function has been a highly active research field in the past century.
The glucocorticoid receptor (NR3C1, abbreviated here as GR) is a sequence-specific DNA-binding transcription factor that is expressed in virtually every human cell type. Hence, almost every tissue is potentially responsive to GCs through gene expression modulation. Since the molecular responses to GCs of given tissues are different, it is thought that epigenetic programming during cellular differentiation underlies the cell-specific GC responses . Below, we will review recent developments in epigenetic research relevant to cell-specific GC response mechanisms. In the last section of this chapter, we will review recent research results that support the notion that non-genomic effects of GCs may be very important too.
2. Chromosome architecture and epigenetic control of glucocorticoid responses: DNA accessibility
Eukaryotic transcription factors (TFs) bind to regulatory DNA elements commonly called “
In order to determine the locations where TFs bind on chromosomes, a technique called chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) was developed in the 1990s. ChIP is based on formaldehyde crosslinking of TFs to DNA, followed by DNA co-immunoprecipitations using antibodies directed against the TF protein . Initially, PCR was used to analyze the co-immunoprecipitated DNA, using the enrichment of putative TF target sites relative to “control” chromosomal regions. Nowadays, the co-immunoprecipitated DNA fragments are prepared as DNA libraries that can be sequenced on next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms, followed by computational mapping of the obtained reads to a reference genome .
Currently, more than 20 human and mouse genome-wide GR occupation profiles are available. These reveal a high degree of GR-binding variability . Grøntved et al. showed that a majority (83%) of GR-DNA binding sites in mouse liver cells are liver cell-specific, while only 0.5% of events are shared between all analyzed cell-types . This suggests that there is a complex and dynamic epigenetic component to GR binding that underlies the differences in GR-mediated transcriptional regulation across cell types.
The first level of epigenetic regulation is rather well defined by DNA being wrapped, or not, around histones to form nucleosomes every ~190 bp [18, 19]. Low nucleosome occupancy can be measured as DNaseI hypersensitivity, because accessible free DNA is more prone to DNaseI endonuclease cleavage than DNA wrapped around nucleosomes [20, 21].
DNA accessibility is an important indicator for GR binding. Early studies indicated that GR binding increases DNA accessibility to DNaseI [22, 23] and it was therefore concluded that GR “opens up” chromatin. Although this is true, more recent research indicates that the a majority of chromosomal GR-binding sites coincide with pre-existing hypersensitive DNA stretches, whose DNaseI accessibility profile is further modulated by GR activity, as first reported on a genome-wide level by John et al. [24, 25, 26, 27] (Figure 1). Grøntved et al. indicated that 62% of glucocorticoid receptor-binding sites are occupied by the transcription factor C/EBP in mouse liver tissue and that C/EBP maintains chromatin accessibility before GC treatment . Furthermore, it was shown that in HeLa cells, 88% of GR-binding sites are already occupied by the lysine acetyltransferase p300 transcription co-activator prior to GC treatment [27, 28]. Altogether, the available evidence indicates that GR-mediated transcriptional control is dependent on other TFs that establish baseline chromatin accessibility profiles in a cell-type specific manner, as exemplified by FoxA1 . However, one single pioneer TF is unlikely to be the sole key to differential use of GR response elements by different cell lineages, or by the same cell type under different conditions. Rather, combinations of DNA sequence-specific transcription factors may act together as “reciprocal pioneers” in an environmentally cued fashion [30, 31, 32, 33].
In summary, in a given cell type, GR generally binds to a predetermined set of nucleosome free regions within enhancers that are marked by lineage determining TFs, and GR only rarely binds at sites with very low initial levels of DNA accessibility (Figure 1) [28, 34]. Intriguingly, GR appears to associate for rather short times with its cognate sites in vivo, with reported DNA residence times in the order of seconds [35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. GR binding usually results in increased histone acetylation  (Figure 1).
3. Chromosome architecture and epigenetic control of glucocorticoid responses: topologically associated domains
Over the last decade, a lot of effort was invested in mapping active
A fascinating feature of nuclear chromosome organization is its hierarchical character, containing several layers of compartmentalization. Analyses of Hi-C contact matrices confirm the existence of a first level of organization, namely the occurrence of chromosome territories  that were previously described in microscopy-based studies . At the next level, individual chromosomes are partitioned into multi-megabase “A” and “B” compartments that have a propensity to cluster separately. “A” compartments tend to display a euchromatin profile, being gene-rich, transcriptionally active, and accessible. “B“ compartments are generally gene-poor with a tendency to be more heterochromatic, transcriptionally inactive, and less accessible. Hi-C maps with improved resolution, mainly obtained through increased sequencing depth and the use of different restriction enzymes, reveal the partitioning of A and B compartments into so-called sub-Mb-sized topologically associated domains (TADs) . TADs are defined by their tendency to favor internal rather than external DNA interactions. Hence, the TAD hypothesis states that TADs are flanked by left and right boundaries and that enhancers mainly interact with promoters and enhancers within their TAD, but not outside of it. It is currently thought that TADs consist of dynamic sub-Mb chromatin fiber loops that undergo continuous remodeling, among others through RNA polymerase II passage.
TADs are highly conserved between different cell lineages , indicating that TADs may be universal functional chromosomal units that serve as a platform within which
The cohesin complex co-localizes with CTCF when assayed by ChIP [56, 57]. Cohesin rings are composed of the core subunits SMC1, SMC3, RAD21, and STAG [58, 59]. Cohesin is most likely loaded onto its chromatid substrate by the NIPBL2/Mau2 cohesin-loading complex, which is enriched at transcription start sites (TSS) [60, 61]. Conversely, cohesin release from chromatids is facilitated by WAPL . Depletion of cohesin leads to altered short-range chromatin interactions, while global TAD organization seemingly persists, suggesting that cohesin and CTCF play different mechanistic roles in TAD formation . Indeed, while inhibiting cohesin loading (by inhibiting cohesin loading factors) inhibits the formation of topologically associated domains, inhibiting cohesin release by inhibiting WAPL restricts loop extension . In the absence of both CTCF and WAPL, cohesin accumulates in up to 70 kilobase-long regions at the 3′-ends of active genes, in particular, if these converge on each other [60, 61]. Cohesin can be moved along chromosomes through RNA polymerase II translocation along its template in yeast and human; this indicates evolutionary conservation of the translocation of Cohesin rings during RNA polymerase II passage.
A quantitative model of “chromatin loop extrusion” was proposed that explains the dynamic features of TADs rather well [50, 65, 66]. Very recently, looping was studied in the monocytic leukemia cell line THP1 that can differentiate into macrophage-like cells. About 16,000 chromatin loops were detected in both cell types and, using stringent selection criteria, 217 were found to be “dynamic” . This indicates that although loss and gain of TAD loops can occur naturally as cells adapt their gene expression landscape, it is not an obligate step in gene activation/repression. Indeed, Hi-C results obtained in parallel in eight primary human hematopoietic cell types show high correspondence .
In 2009, long-range interactions involving GR-bound
Theoretically, there are two types of models for transcription factor (TF)-mediated gene regulation at the level of chromatin organization and chromosome folding. In the first type, repressed loci reside in a silent and inaccessible chromatin state with a low enhancer-promoter interaction frequency. Binding of TFs to distal
4. GR-binding site sequences and GR-mediated transrepression
The oligomerization state and quaternary structure of GR protein on DNA is thought to influence the activity of
Canonical GREs, mineralocorticoid, progesterone, and testosterone receptor-binding sites are virtually identical, being composed of two inverted pseudo-palindromic repeats separated by a spacer sequence of three bases (GRACANNNTGTYC) [76, 112]. Spacer sequence length has been proposed to be important to maintain GR’s dimerization state [77, 78]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that allosteric DNA plasticity in the GR recognition sequences influences the conformational state of GR and, thereby, its spatiotemporal regulatory character [79, 80]. However, Presman et al., shone new light on this paradigm as real-time imaging suggests that GR tetramerizes at GREs . Furthermore, in another key publication, Presman et al. used GR point mutations to confirm that trans-repression and transactivation by GR are two functions that can be separated genetically, whereby loss of transactivation potential though impaired homodimerization did not always co-occur with loss of trans-repression potential .
The application of single-base resolution TF ChIP technology, attained by inclusion of a lambda exonuclease digestion step in the ChIP protocol (ChIP-exo), was used to reveal that many GR-bound half-sites (GRACA) coincide with recognition sequences of unrelated TFs at composite elements [83, 84]. For instance, Lim et al. revealed co-localization with liver-specific TF-binding sites, explaining part of GR’s liver cell-specific binding profiles . The molecular mode of regulation at composite sites still remains to be elucidated, although it was hypothesized to fit a model in which only the co-association of the involved TFs results in productive DNA binding, as seen for classical heterodimeric TFs [85, 86].
Next to its ability to bind half-sites, monomeric GR has been reported to counter the effects of other TFs through protein-protein tethering which would result in trans-repression [87, 88]. One such proposed GR-tethering partner is the activator protein 1 (AP-1) heterodimer made-up of heterodimers of bZIP TF family members. A second major proposed GR tethering partner is NF-κB, a TF that consists of heterodimers of RELA and RELB with NFKB1 and NFKB2 subunits [89, 90, 91, 92].
For long, AP-1 and NF-κB tethering of GR to DNA were considered the dominant mechanism for GR-mediated trans-repression of transcription, through “on-DNA” repression of the GR tethering TF’s transcription activation potential, as reviewed by Glass and Saijo . Genomic studies showed a significant reduction of GR association upon AP-1 loss, but a majority of regulatory scenarios could neither be disentangled nor rationalized through genome-wide ChIP analyses . Indeed, recent experiments indicate that the mode of GR “trans-repression” is still not fully understood. For instance, Oh et al., showed that activation of GR after LPS treatment caused similar gene repression as activation of GR before LPS treatment, and that DNA occupancy by GR was not predictive of gene expression repression, contradicting the “trans-repression by tethering” model. Rather, GR activation was found to directly induce the expression of inhibitors of NF-κB (and AP-1) and this was proposed to cause genome-wide blockade of NF-κB interaction with chromatin . This suggests that protein tethering leading to DNA-bound monomeric GR trans-repression can only account for a minority of repressive events . Indeed, single-molecule imaging suggests that tethering can account for only ~3% of DNA recruitment events .
In yet another twist of the GR tethering saga, Weikum et al. showed that GR associates with a GRE half-site that is located within an AP-1 recognition element, even in the absence of AP-1 . Since AP-1 occupancy was not directly required for GR-mediated trans-repression, Weikum et al. proposed that AP-1 establishes an accessible chromatin state for subsequent GR binding to the half-sites which results in transcription repression . Whether AP-1 trans-repression by GCs relies on co-repressor recruitment [98, 92] or rather on exclusion of other TFs and their co-activators is an unresolved issue at this point in time.
5. Non-genomic mechanisms of gene regulation by glucocorticoids
The classical model for GR action involves ligand-dependent release from a repressive HSP90 complex followed by genomic DNA binding and consequent transcription modulation [12, 75, 99–101]. However, over the years, non-genomic physiologically relevant GR responses have been proposed, as reviewed by Boldizsar et al. . These include direct membrane binding effects of (synthetic) glucocorticoids, a putative non-GR membrane-associated receptor , functional interactions of GR with proteins involved in signal transduction such as kinases and phosphatases [104, 105], and mitochondrial GR translocation as a mechanism leading to T-cell apoptosis . An advantage of non-genomic regulation over genomic regulation of gene expression is that non-genomic regulation can take place much faster than the transcription-translation process, which often take >20 minutes to begin to change a cell’s molecular composition [107, 108, 109].
Over the past decades, it has become apparent that non-genomic mechanisms may also play vital roles in GC action, particularly in the context of immune cell regulation . The mechanism we will review below concerns the apparent capacity of GR to bind to RNA.
There are reports that the growth arrest-specific 5 transcript (GAS5), which is a non-coding RNA, can sequester GR, as well as progesterone and androgen receptors, away from their genomic sites of action by acting as a “GRE decoy” [110, 111, 112]. This GAS5-dependent GC inhibitory pathway appears to also be active in some immune cells [113, 114]. Although there are no crystal structures of GR bound to RNA, such structures have been modeled .
On the other hand, evidence was published that GCs affect the turnover of specific mRNAs. Regulation of mRNA stability is an intricate process controlled by a complex set of interaction between phosphorylation-mediated signaling pathways like the phosphorylation of UPF1 or SMG-2, which together with
Strikingly, in addition to upregulating the expression of mRNA decay factors, it would appear that GR can act directly as a ligand-dependent activator of mRNA decay. In 1999, a 5′ UTR RNA element was reported to be of particular importance for GC regulation of the expression of the MCP-1/CCL2 inflammatory chemokine . In 2007, it was first reported that GR binds specifically to
Over the past decade, GR action has been studied at the molecular level in model systems using DNA accessibility assays, GR ChIP, epigenetic profiling of histone-borne epigenetic marks, transcriptome profiling, and RNA immunoprecipitation. Furthermore, chromosome conformation capture assays have been deployed to investigate the impact of GC signaling on chromosome domain topology.
In the cases where it was studied, GR was found to bind for less than a minute to its genomic targets. GR does not appear to affect the configuration of the topologically associated domains to which it binds. It therefore appears that GR binds to loci where enhancers and promoters are dynamically pre-configured in three-dimensional space. The observation that GR complies with chromosome conformation rather than influencing it offers the exciting perspective of being able to map intergenic GRE’s, which are often located very far away from their target promoters, to TADs. The genes encompassed by these TADs can then be earmarked as potential GR target genes, a hypothesis that can be confirmed by monitoring their expression upon GC exposure.
Results obtained by many laboratories suggest that GR is dependent on other pioneer transcription factors to access its response elements in chromosomal DNA. Co-pioneer factor combinations appear to be cell-type-specific lineage determining TFs, largely explaining the tissue-specific responses elicited by GCs. Furthermore, much evidence indicates that GR is not only restricted to the classical inverted repeat steroid response element, but can also bind to a variety of DNA sequences that only encompass one half site. Furthermore, the concept that GR is tethered indirectly to DNA via other TFs, whose activity it would then repress “on DNA,” is no longer the only model to explain trans-repression in the field. Indeed, other genomic and non-genomic interactions may explain the repression of NFKB and AP-1 target genes observed upon GC exposure.
Interestingly, GR itself appears to be subject to miRNA-mediated regulation, as recently reviewed .
Excitingly, following on early reports of RNA binding, it was reported multiple times that GR is also an mRNA-binding protein that induces mRNA decay. A particular target for this pathway are CCL chemokine family mRNAs that have long been known to undergo a dramatic down-regulation upon GC exposure.
Altogether, we conclude that although much effort has been invested in glucocorticoid research since the discovery in the 1940s that glucocorticoids are anti-inflammatory wonder drugs, much remains to be discovered about the molecular mechanisms of action of glucocorticoids.
|3C||Chromosome Conformation Capture|
|4C||Circularized Chromatin Conformation Capture|
|DHS||DNaseI hypersensitive site|
|GMD||GR-mediated mRNA decay|
|GRE||GR response elements|
|Hi-C||Chromosome conformation capture with high-throughput sequencing|
|TAD||Topologically associating domain|
|TNFα||Tumor necrosis factor|
|TSS||Transcription start site|
|UTR||mRNA untranslated region|
Scheer FA et al. Impact of the human circadian system, exercise, and their interaction on cardiovascular function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010; 107(47):20541-20546
Roberts D et al. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017; 3:CD004454
Liggins GC. The role of cortisol in preparing the fetus for birth. Reproduction, Fertility, and Development. 1994; 6(2):141-150
Gillies GE et al. Enduring, sexually dimorphic impact of in utero exposure to elevated levels of glucocorticoids on midbrain dopaminergic populations. Brain Sciences. 2016; 7(1)
Alcantara-Alonso V et al. Corticotropin-releasing hormone as the homeostatic rheostat of Feto-maternal Symbiosis and developmental programming in utero and neonatal life. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology (Lausanne). 2017; 8:161
Varney NR, Alexander B, MacIndoe JH. Reversible steroid dementia in patients without steroid psychosis. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 1984; 141(3):369-372
Cahill L, McGaugh JL. Mechanisms of emotional arousal and lasting declarative memory. Trends in Neurosciences. 1998; 21(7):294-299
Hunsberger JG et al. Cellular mechanisms underlying affective resiliency: The role of glucocorticoid receptor- and mitochondrially-mediated plasticity. Brain Research. 2009; 1293:76-84
Savino W et al. Hormonal control of T-cell development in health and disease. Nature Reviews. Endocrinology. 2016; 12(2):77-89
Zen M et al. The kaleidoscope of glucorticoid effects on immune system. Autoimmunity Reviews. 2011; 10(6):305-310
Allen DB. Effects of inhaled steroids on growth, bone metabolism, and adrenal function. Advances in Pediatrics. 2006; 53:101-110
Cain DW, Cidlowski JA. Immune regulation by glucocorticoids. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2017; 17(4):233-247
Logie C, Stunnenberg HG. Epigenetic memory: A macrophage perspective. Seminars in Immunology. 2016; 28(4):359-367
Orlando V. Mapping chromosomal proteins in vivo by formaldehyde-crosslinked-chromatin immunoprecipitation. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 2000; 25(3):99-104
Thomas R et al. Features that define the best ChIP-seq peak calling algorithms. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2017; 18(3):441-450
Sacta MA, Chinenov Y, Rogatsky I. Glucocorticoid signaling: An update from a genomic perspective. Annual Review of Physiology. 2016; 78:155-180
Grøntved L et al. C/EBP maintains chromatin accessibility in liver and facilitates glucocorticoid receptor recruitment to steroid response elements. The EMBO Journal, 2013. 32(11): p. 1568-1583
Valouev A et al. Determinants of nucleosome organization in primary human cells. Nature. 2011; 474(7352):516-520
Jiang C, Pugh BF. Nucleosome positioning and gene regulation: Advances through genomics. Nature Reviews. Genetics. 2009; 10(3):161-172
Gross DS, Garrard WT. Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 1988; 57:159-197
Dorschner MO et al. High-throughput localization of functional elements by quantitative chromatin profiling. Nature Methods. 2004; 1(3):219-225
Richard-Foy H, Hager GL. Sequence-specific positioning of nucleosomes over the steroid-inducible MMTV promoter. The EMBO Journal. 1987; 6(8):2321-2328
Reik A, Schutz G, Stewart AF. Glucocorticoids are required for establishment and maintenance of an alteration in chromatin structure: Induction leads to a reversible disruption of nucleosomes over an enhancer. The EMBO Journal. 1991; 10(9):2569-2576
John S et al. Chromatin accessibility pre-determines glucocorticoid receptor binding patterns. Nature Genetics. 2011; 43(3):264-268
Lorzadeh A et al. Nucleosome density ChIP-Seq identifies distinct chromatin modification signatures associated with MNase accessibility. Cell Reports. 2016; 17(8):2112-2124
Reddy TE et al. The hypersensitive glucocorticoid response specifically regulates period 1and expression of circadian genes. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2012; 32(18):3756-3767
Rao NA et al. Coactivation of GR and NFKB alters the repertoire of their binding sites and target genes. Genome Research. 2011; 21(9):1404-1416
Kuznetsova T et al. Glucocorticoid receptor and nuclear factor kappa-B affect three-dimensional chromatin organization. Genome Biology. 2015; 16:264
Eeckhoute J et al. Cell-type selective chromatin remodeling defines the active subset of FOXA1-bound enhancers. Genome Research. 2009; 19(3):372-380
Adam RC, Fuchs E. The yin and Yang of chromatin dynamics in stem cell fate selection. Trends in Genetics. 2016; 32(2):89-100
Drouin J. 60 YEARS OF POMC: Transcriptional and epigenetic regulation of POMC gene expression. Journal of Molecular Endocrinology. 2016; 56(4):T99-T112
Swinstead EE et al. Steroid receptors reprogram FoxA1 occupancy through dynamic chromatin transitions. Cell. 2016; 165(3):593-605
Zaret KS, Lerner J, Iwafuchi-Doi M. Chromatin scanning by dynamic binding of Pioneer factors. Molecular Cell. 2016; 62(5):665-667
Biddie SC et al. Transcription factor AP1 potentiates chromatin accessibility and glucocorticoid receptor binding. Molecular Cell. 2011; 43(1):145-155
Gebhardt JC et al. Single-molecule imaging of transcription factor binding to DNA in live mammalian cells. Nature Methods. 2013; 10(5):421-426
Stasevich TJ et al. Cross-validating FRAP and FCS to quantify the impact of photobleaching on in vivo binding estimates. Biophysical Journal. 2010; 99(9):3093-3101
Mikuni S, Tamura M, Kinjo M. Analysis of intranuclear binding process of glucocorticoid receptor using fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. FEBS Letters. 2007; 581(3):389-393
Morisaki T et al. Single-molecule analysis of transcription factor binding at transcription sites in live cells. Nature Communications. 2014; 5:4456
Groeneweg FL et al. Quantitation of glucocorticoid receptor DNA-binding dynamics by single-molecule microscopy and FRAP. PLoS One. 2014; 9(3):e90532
Dekker J et al. Capturing chromosome conformation. Science. 2002; 295(5558):1306-1311
Simonis M et al. Nuclear organization of active and inactive chromatin domains uncovered by chromosome conformation capture-on-chip (4C). Nature Genetics. 2006; 38(11):1348-1354
Olivares-Chauvet P et al. Capturing pairwise and multi-way chromosomal conformations using chromosomal walks. Nature. 2016; 540(7632):296-300
van Berkum NL et al. Hi-C: A method to study the three-dimensional architecture of genomes. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2010(39)
Hughes JR et al. Analysis of hundreds of cis-regulatory landscapes at high resolution in a single, high-throughput experiment. Nature Genetics. 2014; 46(2):205-212
Lieberman-Aiden E et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science. 2009; 326(5950):289-293
Bolzer A et al. Three-dimensional maps of all chromosomes in human male fibroblast nuclei and prometaphase rosettes. PLoS Biology. 2005; 3(5):e157
Dixon JR et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature. 2012; 485(7398):376-380
Razin SV, Ulianov SV. Gene functioning and storage within a folded genome. Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters. 2017; 22:18
Liu M et al. Genomic discovery of potent chromatin insulators for human gene therapy. Nature Biotechnology. 2015; 33(2):198-203
Sanborn AL et al. Chromatin extrusion explains key features of loop and domain formation in wild-type and engineered genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015; 112(47):E6456-E6465
Guo Y et al. CRISPR inversion of CTCF sites alters genome topology and enhancer/promoter function. Cell. 2015; 162(4):900-910
Nora EP et al. Targeted degradation of CTCF decouples local insulation of chromosome domains from genomic compartmentalization. Cell. 2017; 169(5):930-944 e22
Nikolic T et al. The DNA-binding factor Ctcf critically controls gene expression in macrophages. Cellular & Molecular Immunology. 2014; 11(1):58-70
Lettice LA et al. Enhancer-adoption as a mechanism of human developmental disease. Human Mutation. 2011; 32(12):1492-1499
Hnisz D et al. Activation of proto-oncogenes by disruption of chromosome neighborhoods. Science. 2016; 351(6280):1454-1458
Parelho V et al. Cohesins functionally associate with CTCF on mammalian chromosome arms. Cell. 2008; 132(3):422-433
Wendt KS et al. Cohesin mediates transcriptional insulation by CCCTC-binding factor. Nature. 2008; 451(7180):796-801
Gruber S, Haering CH, Nasmyth K. Chromosomal cohesin forms a ring. Cell. 2003; 112(6):765-777
Lara-Pezzi E et al. Evidence of a transcriptional co-activator function of cohesin STAG/SA/Scc3. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2004; 279(8):6553-6559
Lengronne A et al. Cohesin relocation from sites of chromosomal loading to places of convergent transcription. Nature. 2004; 430(6999):573-578
Busslinger GA et al. Cohesin is positioned in mammalian genomes by transcription, CTCF and Wapl. Nature. 2017; 544(7651):503-507
Kueng S et al. Wapl controls the dynamic association of cohesin with chromatin. Cell. 2006; 127(5):955-967
Zuin J et al. Cohesin and CTCF differentially affect chromatin architecture and gene expression in human cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014; 111(3):996-1001
Haarhuis JHI et al. The Cohesin release factor WAPL restricts chromatin loop extension. Cell. 2017; 169(4):693-707 e14
Alipour E, Marko JF. Self-organization of domain structures by DNA-loop-extruding enzymes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2012; 40(22):11202-11212
Fudenberg G et al. Formation of chromosomal domains by loop extrusion. Cell Reports. 2016; 15(9):2038-2049
Phanstiel DH et al. Static and dynamic DNA loops form AP-1-bound activation hubs during macrophage development. Molecular Cell. 2017; 67(6):1037-1048 e6
Javierre BM et al. Lineage-specific genome architecture links enhancers and non-coding disease variants to target gene promoters. Cell. 2016; 167(5):1369-1384 e19
Hakim O et al. Glucocorticoid receptor activation of the Ciz1-Lcn2 locus by long range interactions. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2009; 284(10):6048-6052
Hakim O et al. Diverse gene reprogramming events occur in the same spatial clusters of distal regulatory elements. Genome Research. 2011; 21(5):697-706
Stavreva DA et al. Dynamics of chromatin accessibility and long-range interactions in response to glucocorticoid pulsing. Genome Research. 2015; 25(6):845-857
Teferedegne B et al. Mechanism of action of a distal NF-kappaB-dependent enhancer. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2006; 26(15):5759-5770
Vernimmen D et al. Long-range chromosomal interactions regulate the timing of the transition between poised and active gene expression. The EMBO Journal. 2007; 26(8):2041-2051
Andrey G et al. A switch between topological domains underlies HoxD genes collinearity in mouse limbs. Science. 2013; 340(6137):1234167
Malovannaya A et al. Analysis of the human endogenous coregulator complexome. Cell. 2011; 145(5):787-799
Yamamoto KR. Steroid receptor regulated transcription of specific genes and gene networks. Annual Review of Genetics. 1985; 19:209-252
Luisi BF et al. Crystallographic analysis of the interaction of the glucocorticoid receptor with DNA. Nature. 1991; 352(6335):497-505
Gronemeyer H, Bourguet W. Allosteric effects govern nuclear receptor action: DNA appears as a player. Science Signaling. 2009; 2(73):pe34
Meijsing SH et al. DNA binding site sequence directs glucocorticoid receptor structure and activity. Science. 2009; 324(5925):407-410
Watson LC et al. The glucocorticoid receptor dimer interface allosterically transmits sequence-specific DNA signals. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2013; 20(7):876-883
Presman DM et al. DNA binding triggers tetramerization of the glucocorticoid receptor in live cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2016; 113(29):8236-8241
Presman DM et al. Live cell imaging unveils multiple domain requirements for in vivo dimerization of the glucocorticoid receptor. PLoS Biology. 2014; 12(3):e1001813
Starick SR et al. ChIP-exo signal associated with DNA-binding motifs provides insight into the genomic binding of the glucocorticoid receptor and cooperating transcription factors. Genome Research. 2015; 25(6):825-835
Lim HW et al. Genomic redistribution of GR monomers and dimers mediates transcriptional response to exogenous glucocorticoid in vivo. Genome Research. 2015; 25(6):836-844
Vinson C, Acharya A, Taparowsky EJ. Deciphering B-ZIP transcription factor interactions in vitro and in vivo. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 2006; 1759(1-2):4-12
Cooper CD, Newman JA, Gileadi O. Recent advances in the structural molecular biology of Ets transcription factors: Interactions, interfaces and inhibition. Biochemical Society Transactions. 2014; 42(1):130-138
Karin M. New twists in gene regulation by glucocorticoid receptor: Is DNA binding dispensable? Cell. 1998; 93(4):487-490
Kassel O, Herrlich P. Crosstalk between the glucocorticoid receptor and other transcription factors: Molecular aspects. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology. 2007; 275(1-2):13-29
Baeuerle PA, Baltimore D. NF-kappa B: Ten years after. Cell. 1996; 87(1):13-20
De Bosscher K, Vanden Berghe W, Haegeman G. The interplay between the glucocorticoid receptor and nuclear factor-kappaB or activator protein-1: Molecular mechanisms for gene repression. Endocrine Reviews. 2003; 24(4):488-522
Hayden MS, Ghosh S. NF-kappaB, the first quarter-century: Remarkable progress and outstanding questions. Genes & Development. 2012; 26(3):203-234
Natoli G. NF-kappaB and chromatin: Ten years on the path from basic mechanisms to candidate drugs. Immunological Reviews. 2012; 246(1):183-192
Glass CK, Saijo K. Nuclear receptor transrepression pathways that regulate inflammation in macrophages and T cells. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2010; 10(5):365-376
Uhlenhaut NH et al. Insights into negative regulation by the glucocorticoid receptor from genome-wide profiling of inflammatory cistromes. Molecular Cell. 2013; 49(1):158-171
Oh KS et al. Anti-inflammatory chromatinscape suggests alternative mechanisms of glucocorticoid receptor action. Immunity. 2017; 47(2):298-309 e5
Kadiyala V et al. Cistrome-based cooperation between airway epithelial glucocorticoid receptor and NF-kappaB orchestrates anti-inflammatory effects. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2016; 291(24):12673-12687
Weikum ER et al. Tethering not required: The glucocorticoid receptor binds directly to activator protein-1 recognition motifs to repress inflammatory genes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017; 45(14):8596-8608
Chinenov Y et al. Role of transcriptional coregulator GRIP1 in the anti-inflammatory actions of glucocorticoids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012; 109(29):11776-11781
Logie C, Stewart AF. Ligand-regulated site-specific recombination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1995; 92(13):5940-5944
Inayoshi Y et al. Repression of GR-mediated expression of the tryptophan oxygenase gene by the SWI/SNF complex during liver development. Journal of Biochemistry. 2005; 138(4):457-465
Muratcioglu S et al. Structural modeling of GR interactions with the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex and C/EBP. Biophysical Journal. 2015; 109(6):1227-1239
Boldizsar F et al. Emerging pathways of non-genomic glucocorticoid (GC) signalling in T cells. Immunobiology. 2010; 215(7):521-526
Lowenberg M et al. Novel insights into mechanisms of glucocorticoid action and the development of new glucocorticoid receptor ligands. Steroids. 2008; 73(9-10):1025-1029
Buttgereit F, Scheffold A. Rapid glucocorticoid effects on immune cells. Steroids. 2002; 67(6):529-534
Beck IM et al. Crosstalk in inflammation: The interplay of glucocorticoid receptor-based mechanisms and kinases and phosphatases. Endocrine Reviews. 2009; 30(7):830-882
Sionov RV et al. Role of mitochondrial glucocorticoid receptor in glucocorticoid-induced apoptosis. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. 2006; 203(1):189-201
Stellato C. Post-transcriptional and nongenomic effects of glucocorticoids. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society. 2004; 1(3):255-263
Cruz-Topete D, Cidlowski JA. One hormone, two actions: Anti- and pro-inflammatory effects of glucocorticoids. Neuroimmunomodulation. 2015; 22(1-2):20-32
Battich N, Stoeger T, Pelkmans L. Control of transcript variability in single mammalian cells. Cell. 2015; 163(7):1596-1610
Kino T et al. Noncoding RNA gas5 is a growth arrest- and starvation-associated repressor of the glucocorticoid receptor. Science Signaling. 2010; 3(107):ra8
Tani H, Torimura M, Akimitsu N. The RNA degradation pathway regulates the function of GAS5 a non-coding RNA in mammalian cells. PLoS One. 2013; 8(1):e55684
Strahle U et al. Glucocorticoid- and progesterone-specific effects are determined by differential expression of the respective hormone receptors. Nature. 1989; 339(6226):629-632
Mayama T, Marr AK, Kino T. Differential expression of glucocorticoid receptor noncoding RNA repressor Gas5 in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Hormone and Metabolic Research. 2016; 48(8):550-557
Lucafo M et al. Role of the long non-coding RNA growth arrest-specific 5 in glucocorticoid response in children with inflammatory bowel disease. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. 2017
Page MF et al. SMG-2 is a phosphorylated protein required for mRNA surveillance in Caenorhabditis elegansand related to Upf1p of yeast. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 1999; 19(9):5943-5951
Bhattacharya A et al. Characterization of the biochemical properties of the human Upf1 gene product that is involved in nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. RNA. 2000; 6(9):1226-1235
Shyu AB, Wilkinson MF. The double lives of shuttling mRNA binding proteins. Cell. 2000; 102(2):135-138
Anderson P, Kedersha N. RNA granules: Post-transcriptional and epigenetic modulators of gene expression. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2009; 10(6):430-436
Chen CY, Shyu AB. AU-rich elements: Characterization and importance in mRNA degradation. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 1995; 20(11):465-470
Chen CY et al. Nucleolin and YB-1 are required for JNK-mediated interleukin-2 mRNA stabilization during T-cell activation. Genes & Development. 2000; 14(10):1236-1248
Anderson P. Post-transcriptional control of cytokine production. Nature Immunology. 2008; 9(4):353-359
Ishmael FT et al. Role of the RNA-binding protein tristetraprolin in glucocorticoid-mediated gene regulation. Journal of Immunology. 2008; 180(12):8342-8353
Kratochvill F et al. Tristetraprolin limits inflammatory cytokine production in tumor-associated macrophages in an mRNA decay-independent manner. Cancer Research. 2015; 75(15):3054-3064
Poon M, Liu B, Taubman MB. Identification of a novel dexamethasone-sensitive RNA-destabilizing region on rat monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 mRNA. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 1999; 19(10):6471-6478
Dhawan L et al. A novel role for the glucocorticoid receptor in the regulation of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 mRNA stability. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2007; 282(14):10146-10152
Ishmael FT et al. The human glucocorticoid receptor as an RNA-binding protein: Global analysis of glucocorticoid receptor-associated transcripts and identification of a target RNA motif. Journal of Immunology. 2011; 186(2):1189-1198
Cho H et al. Glucocorticoid receptor interacts with PNRC2 in a ligand-dependent manner to recruit UPF1 for rapid mRNA degradation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015; 112(13):E1540-E1549
Park OH, Do E, Kim YK. A new function of glucocorticoid receptor: Regulation of mRNA stability. BMB Reports. 2015; 48(7):367-368
Park OH et al. Identification and molecular characterization of cellular factors required for glucocorticoid receptor-mediated mRNA decay. Genes & Development. 2016; 30(18):2093-2105
Rabani M et al. High-resolution sequencing and modeling identifies distinct dynamic RNA regulatory strategies. Cell. 2014; 159(7):1698-1710
Wang H et al. The effects of microRNAs on glucocorticoid responsiveness. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2017; 143(6):1005-1011